Filing # 21842186 Electronically Filed 12/19/2014 09:22:52 PM RECEIVED, 12/19/2014 21:23:50, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF FLORIDA, et al., Appellants, Case No.: SC14-1905 L.T. Nos.: 2012-CA-00412 v. 2012-CA-00490 KEN DETZNER, et al., Appellees. ANSWER BRIEF OF THE FLORIDA STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES Allison J. Riggs Nancy Abudu Anita S. Earls AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES George Eppsteiner UNION OF FLORIDA SOUTHERN COALITION FOR FOUNDATION SOCIAL JUSTICE 4500 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 340 1415 W. Highway 54, Suite 101 Miami, FL 33137 Durham, NC 27707 Jerry Wilson Victor L. Goode P.O. Box 971 NAACP Redan, Georgia 30074 4805 Mt. Hope Drive Baltimore, MD 21215-3297 Counsel for the Florida State Conference of NAACP Branches TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………….iii INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS ....................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 9 ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 10 I. Legal Standards ............................................................................................10 a. Standard on Appeal .....................................................................................10 b. Review of Redistricting Plans .....................................................................11 II. Minority Voting Protections under Art. III, Section 20 ........................12 III. Congressional District 5 is Compliant with Art. III, Sec. 20 .................26 a. Alternative Maps .......................................................................................26 b. Vote Dilution ..............................................................................................28 c. Diminishment .............................................................................................38 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 45 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .................................................................. 49 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (2009) .................................................................37 Beer v. United States, 425 U.S.125 (1976) ..............................................................21 Black Political Task Force v. Galvin, 300 F. Supp. 2d 291 (D.C. Mass. 2004) .....30 Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996) ..........................................................................11 Carrollton Branch of the NAACP v. Stallings, 829 F.2d 1547 (11th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 936 (1988) .................................................................................20 Colleton County v. McConnell, 201 F. Supp. 2d 618 (D.S.C. 2002) ......................25 Davis v. Chiles, 139 F.3d 1414 (11th Cir. 1998), cert denied sub nom Davis v. Bush, 526 U.S. 1003 (1999) ........................................................................... 17, 30 De Grandy v. Wetherell, 794 F. Supp. 1076 (N.D. Fla. 1992) ..................... 2, 16, 33 DeWitt v. Wilson, 856 F. Supp. 1409 (E.D. Cal. 1994), summarily aff'd, 515 U.S. 1170 (1995) ...........................................................................................................11 Dillard v. Baldwin Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 686 F. Supp. 1459 (M.D. Ala. 1988) .........16 Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001) ..............................................................12 Fla. Dep’t of State v. Fla. State Conf. of NAACP Branches, 43 So. 3d 662 (Fla. 2010) ....................................................................................................................... 3 Georgia v. Ashcroft, 195 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2002) ...................... 18, 22, 24, 30 Gingles v. Thornburg, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) ...................................................... passim In re Estate of Greenberg, 390 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1980) .............................................11 In re Senate Joint Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 1176, 83 So. 3d 597 (Fla. 2012) (“Apportionment I”) ................................................................... passim In re Senate Joint Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 2-B, 89 So. 3d 872 (Fla. 2012) (“Apportionment II”) ........................................................................... 43, 44 Jenkins v. Manning, 116 F.3d 685 (3rd Cir. 1997) ........................................... 17, 30 Johnson v. Mortham, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7792 (N.D. Fla. 1996) ....................29 LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006) ............................................................. 12, 19 Martinez v. Bush, 234 F. Supp. 2d 1275 (S.D. Fla. 2002) ...................................3, 29 Monroe v. Woodville, 897 F.2d 763 (5th Cir. 1990) .................................................20 NAACP v. Fordice, 252 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 2001) ....................................................20 Perry v. Perez, 132 S. Ct. 934 (2012) ......................................................................28 Rural W. Tenn. African-Am. Affairs Council v. Sundquist, 209 F.3d 835 (6th Cir. 2000) .....................................................................................................................17 iii Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996) .........................................................................19 Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013) ...................................25 Stephens v. State, 748 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 1999) .......................................................10 Westwego Citizens for Better Gov’t v. City of Westwego, 872 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1989) .............................................................................................................. 18, 30 White v. Register, 412 U.S. 755 (1973) ...................................................................19 Zingale v. Powell, 885 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2004) ........................................................10 Other Authorities Dep’t of Justice Guidance Concerning Redistricting Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 76 Fed. Reg. 7470, 7471 (Feb. 9, 2011) ..................................... 21, 22 H.R. Rep. No. 109-478 (2006) .................................................................................24 Objection Letter from R. Alexander Acosta, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, to Nancy P. Jensen, Capital Region Planning Commission (December 12, 2003) ........................................................42 Objection Letter from Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, to C. Samuel Bennett II, Clinton City Manager (December 9, 2002) ...............................................................................42 Objection Letter from Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, to James E. Trainor II, Beirne, Maynard & Parsons (March 5, 2012) .......................................................................................41 Richard L. Engstrom, Influence Districts—A Note of Caution and a Better Measure, Research Brief, The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy (May 2011), available at http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Influence_Districts.pdf .................................23 iv INTRODUCTION The approval of Amendments 5 and 6 in 2010 by a substantial majority of Florida voters represented a seminal point in the arc of voting rights struggles in the state. The state constitution now provides independent and more expansive protections for voters of color than federal law. However, Appellants’ interpretation of Amendment 6 essentially renders irrelevant all input from citizens, even those whom the Amendment is explicitly designed to protect. That interpretation cannot be right, nor was it the will of the voters who passed the Amendment. If this Court truly intends to “ascertain the will of the people in passing the amendment” and to “fulfill the intent of the people, never to defeat it,” In re Senate Joint Resolution of Legislative Apportionment 1176, 83 So. 3d 597, 599 (Fla. 2012) (“Apportionment I”), then the voice of one of the strongest proponents of the Amendment must be heard now. And the gains in minority representation attained by decades of struggle and bloodshed should not be sacrificed at the altar of political gamesmanship. Those precious gains are fully protected by the Florida Constitution. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS The Florida NAACP’s involvement in the instant litigation was triggered by an attack on a district—Congressional District 5—that was the result of its advocacy to remedy the decades of political exclusion that black voters in North- 1 Central Florida faced. The district is necessary still today to ensure that its members in the region are afforded representation of their choice. Because Appellants have painted an inaccurate historical picture of Congressional District 5—which, according to them, has “long been a bulwark of partisan gerrymandering”—it is necessary to examine briefly the history of Congressional District 5. In reality, the creation of this district was the direct result of years of NAACP litigation to remedy decades of vote dilution experienced by African